Can /g/ think of any other instances where an inferior technology won only due to a conspiracy among manufacturers to minimize their production costs?
>>51321134
>CRTfags actually believe this
jesus, man, it's been over a decade
get over it, christ
>>51321134
>gasoline-powered cars
>DC power
Intel pulling a rockefeller move against amd
Anything made out of plastic
>crt monitors were phased out because lcd screens were a money making scheme
>not that crt screens weigh a shit on, require a curved display and look ugly as dicks
Shitty rubber dome keyboards
Hell, even the Model M was the inferior cost cutting version of capacitative buckling springs.
>>51321505
CRTs were getting better, they were finally maturing. Instead of continuing to make them even better, they scuttled them to better dupe rednecks into buying 55 inch screens and because it costs next to nothing to make an LCD, while crafting a decent CRT took proper materials.
The free market didn't have a say because they all killed high-quality consumer CRTs simultaneously.
>>51321134
>literally wanting a monitor that weighs 150 lbs
>>51321647
>Getting better
No, they weren't, moreover as prices fell, they were made worse and worse.
An early 90's Trinitron CRT monitor didn't make a sound
An early 00's Trintron squealed like a little bitch becuase Sony cut costs by using shittier flybacks.
Also, CRT's biggest enemy was the EU - RoHS killed CRT.
Barium glass is *VERY* expensive and was only used for the front glass on CRTs for this reason (it blocks X-rays and Gamma rays) with Lead glass being used for the rest of the tube (blocked better than Barium glass, was FAR cheaper than Barium Glass, but made everything glow orange)
Post RoHS all of the glass would need to be the expensive Barium glass as Lead wasn't allowed by RoHS, this alone would have increased the costs per tube to 13-15x more than they were using lead glass.
If you want a Villain to blame, blame the EU
>>51321619
you forgot, bowed those shitty particle board desks everyone uses at home
>>51321718
>blame the EU
Why am I not surprised. They are responsible for everything bad in the modern world.
>>51321647
>implying the size had nothing to do with consumers wanting LCD > CRT
>>51321134
>inferior technology
Eventually LCD will be replaced too
>>51321134
Keyboards.
But to be completely honest: everything. Pretty much every product is watered down over time to minimize production costs.
>>51321718
RoHS was such a disgrace. All the soccer moms were happy because it made their kids' electronics "less toxic," and the bleeding heart types saw it as a victory for environmentalism.
In truth, the both groups are wrong because your iPhones are still chock full of heavy metals and other nasties. Nasty shit gets dumped into Chinese villages, RoHS or no. The second group is doubly wrong because (as any EE major will bitch about for hours on end) lead-free solder melts at a higher temperature and therefore takes more energy to heat.
I'm not salty about CRTs, because an IPS 144hz LCD looks much better than any CRT I owned ever did, but RoHS still makes me mad.
>>51321505
If CRTs still had their way in them market, iPads would just be CRT monitors facing upwards with a resistive touch screen overlaid on the glass.
>minimize their production costs
>conspiracy
i don't see how it's a conspiracy at all that almost everyone got products that were thinner, lighter and cheaper
>>51321957
This is something people also tend to overlook.
I paid AUD$2899 for my 36" widescreen HD CRT TV in 2006.
>iirc 1931x1118 maximum resolution, only accepts 1080i max though, Toshiba 36JW9UA
Today, I can get a 40" Full HD LCD for $369
>Samsung *VA panel, 5000:1 native contrast, 8ms Black to White, 1ms Grey to Grey, Kogan KALED40XXXZC
That's 7.85 LCDs I could buy for the same money I paid for a smaller CRT.
>>51321957
>everyone got products that were thinner, lighter and cheaper
AND YET INFERIOR PICTURE QUALITY WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>51322071
why would you buy .85 lcds anon?
>>51322075
That's even subjective.
In a dark room, Yes a CRT will definitely look better than *ANY* LCD
But in a lit room, there is little to no difference unless it's shitty office/pleb consumer CRT.
>Good CRTs tend to have a silver/dark grey colour to the tube, this is because it's far better for colour accuracy, but in a lit room - black still won't black as outside light will reflect off the silver coating.
Consumer pleb/office work CRTs actually have a nice black/very very dark grey coating, which allows them to have better contrast in lit conditions at the expense of colour accuracy.
>Color Accuracy
>Contrast
>Lit Environment
You can only have 2 out of 3 at all times.
So in a lit environment like most plebs have, an LCD for the most part isn't any worse than a good CRT.
CRT monitors created a shit ton of e-waste.
>>51322168
Choke on an LED hippy
